[Leica] Re: R Portraits

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Gib Robinson: >>>I'd like some help choosing a portrait lens for an R8.
I don't own any lenses above 50mm that are faster than f/4 and I'd like
one. As far as I
know, my choices are 80 Summilux, 90 Summicron, 100 f/2.8 APO Macro.
I've
been leaning toward the 80mm 1.4 because it seems like a very workable
focal length with ideal speed. The APO macro seems a tad long and a
tweak slow in spite of it's legendary qualities as a macro lens. What's
been the
experience of this group?<<<


Gib,
My experience doing available light portraits of single individuals (an
interest of mine for years) has been that macro lenses are not what you
want--their ruthless sharpness is a liability for portraits. Our
eye-brain perception tends to discount surface details and transitory
marks on faces--wrinkles, pores, blemishes--and yet we are highly
programmed to distinguish stable features for purposes of
recognition--the aspects of faces that remain more stable over time,
their shape and structure. (The other thing we're very sensitive to--the
more so as we get older, as research suggests that teenagers have not
developed the ability very highly--is to detect clues of expression.)
But in a way, a lens that resolves too well is actually _less_ accurate
to the way our eyes and brains see faces than a lens with a little less
resolution that subtly de-emphasizes things like pores, hairs, pimples,
etc.

For this reason, I think a faster lens that's somewhat softer at its
widest apertures can be useful. I've never used the 80/1.4-R, but I know
the Zeiss Contax 85/1.4 well, and it's a great portrait lens--it goes
from quite soft at f/1.4 to very sharp at f/4, allowing you to pick your
effects in between.

I've also used the 90/2-R lens, and I think it's wonderful for
portraiture. I really love its look wide open--it has enough contrast to
make eyes and hair look luminously sharp, yet it has just the right
amount of lack of resolution so as not to show every pore. It's then
quite sharp by f/4 or f/5.6 for when you want that effect. And it has
very nice background and foreground blur characteristics. A very nice
portrait lens.

A couple more random observations: first, soft-focus lenses or filters
seldom satisfy. They're all too damned obvious. It's better to get the
right lens and use it unfiltered. If you do feel you need soft-focus
effect, a trick I've used is to get a clear filter and draw on it with a
permanent marker or white-out--you can experiment with softening effects
and wipe or scrape the filter clean and start over if what you get isn't
to your liking. Net stockings can also work well, depending on their
color and fineness or coarseness of mesh. Generally, you have to be very
tasteful with any kind of soft-focus gimmick, being very careful not to
overdo it or call attention to it.

Second, I need at least f/2 for speed; in practice, I find f/2.8 gets
limiting too often. This is a judgement call for each individual
depending on the films you use and the style of portraiture you like.
But it's held true for me pretty consistently over the years with
various lenses and brands of camera.

The third observation is that the difference in close-focusing ability,
between about three and a half feet and two feet, for me, is
critical--with lenses that close-focus at 3.5 feet, I run into trouble
intermittently but persistently, and, with lenses that focus to two
feet, I never do. So small differences in that one a half feet in
between can be important; the difference between a lens that focuses to
3'2" and one that goes to 2'8", say, would be important to me.
Naturally, macro lenses do have the advantage here, despite their other
disadvantages for portraiture. This can be an advantage of a slightly
longer lens, since you may get greater magnification out of the same
close-focusing distance. (Be aware that some lenses change their actual
focal length at different focussing distances, however.)

I guess I'd have to say that that the best portrait lenses I've ever
used are the Zeiss Contax 85mms first, Leica R 90/2 second, and Olympus
100/2 (which focuses very close for a non-macro lens) third, and the old
Nikkor 75-150mm Series-E zoom fourth, this last for outdoor and studio
strobe work at least. Bear in mind I haven't used every lens out there,
but I've probably used more different lenses in the 85mm-105mm range
than the average photographer. If I were you, I'd say you should try out
both the 80/1.4 or the 90/2--try before you buy, though--and forget
about the 100/2.8 Apo-Macro.

Note that these are personal opinions based only on my own experience
over the years.

- --Mike Johnston, Editor
_PHOTO Techniques_ magazine
www.phototechmag.com